link_task_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it clarifies non-destructiveness, many-to-many cardinality, and bidirectional visibility (note shows linked tasks, task shows source note). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description enriches agent understanding of the resulting relationships.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero waste: first sentence states action and nature, second gives usage guidance, third explains effects. Information is front-loaded and efficiently delivered.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for a simple linking operation. It explains the side effects (note stays in inbox, task gets live link, bidirectional display) without needing an output schema. No gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions ('Note UUID', 'Task UUID'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Link'), the resources ('existing note to a task'), and the nature ('non-destructive, N-N'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'unlink_task_note' by explaining that it creates a many-to-many relationship rather than destroying the note.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case: 'use this instead of deleting a note after creating a task from it.' It implicitly advises against using this tool when a permanent deletion or moving the note is intended, but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.